Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

Heh, guess I'm one of those that bucks the trend I'm strictly independent that voted almost straight democrat last year, I believe the government can be a tool for good, but at the same time also needed to be guarded against

When it comes to these massacres, it's a result of individual people living in delusion. I think to blame our mass culture that at times glorifies violence for these acts is not correct, because the people who commit these crimes are outcasts. Their connection to reality has usually long been severed. The question we have to ask, is why are so many people (in America, but also elsewhere) severed from reality so much that they wish to go on a massive killing spree? I don't think we try hard enough to understand the motives lying behind these instances of mass murder. I don't think it's practically feasible to prevent all such things (some people are always going to be crazy), but I think they present an opportunity to learn a bit about the dark side of our own humanity.

Hmm, while I certainly wouldn't lay all the blame on it, I still think it's definitely part of the issue. They may be outcasts, but that means they were spurned by others, not necessarily that they themselves have rejected everything they've known.

I would argue that their disconnect from reality, or just plain apathy, makes it easier for them to severe the last restraints they might have had. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's really possible to truly understand what was going through their mind.

The world may be changing faster than it ever has before, but the sad reality that man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds, have not.

Hmm, while I certainly wouldn't lay all the blame on it, I still think it's definitely part of the issue. They may be outcasts, but that means they were spurned by others, not necessarily that they themselves have rejected everything they've known.

I would argue that their disconnect from reality, or just plain apathy, makes it easier for them to severe the last restraints they might have had. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's really possible to truly understand what was going through their mind.

The world may be changing faster than it ever has before, but the sad reality that man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds, have not.

I think your post hints at what the problem might be, and it's not glorification of violence. It's the fact that they were spurned or rejected by their peers and so became outcasts.

The people who commit these massacres may also glory in violent pop culture, but I think they're just seizing on something visible to express their violent thoughts. The pop culture is not the originator of their violent impulses, but rather their isolation and hatred of the people around them, at best the pop culture simply serves as a catalyst. But the real problem is that they came to be so isolated and hateful in the first place, and that has nothing to do with pop culture, and everything to do with how we all act in our every day lives. Perhaps the biggest problem is the fact we stigmatise mental health issues so much, it simply drives people underground, away from society at large which usually grounds our worst ideas.

If you look at all these mass murderers, from the Unabomber to Seung Hui Cho, the common ingredient is isolation, and the madness that stems from it. Something to consider about two of the most notorious mass murders in American history: Neither of them were particularly into pop culture.

Still, if you look at violent crime overall beyond just the mass shootings, I'd say the violent culture has significantly more impact there.

In terms of regular violent crime you may be right. But there's also issues of poverty and broken families. I listened to an interesting radio program recently that compared the experiences of an Afghan war veteran, and a former drug dealer from Philadelphia, and the similarities in experiences were uncanny. To give some context to the dealer, he came home at the age of 6 to find his mother shot dead, and from there it was all downhill. The difference, I guess, is that the War Veteran comes home from the war zone, the dealer is stuck there.

I don't really think the violent crime in these areas is strictly related to our violent popular culture, rather the violent pop culture in those areas is a symptom of the violence and poverty that is already endemic there. Though I will say that pop culture is responsible for all the "poseurs", but while they're extremely annoying, they're ultimately harmless.

In terms of regular violent crime you may be right. But there's also issues of poverty and broken families. I listened to an interesting radio program recently that compared the experiences of an Afghan war veteran, and a former drug dealer from Philadelphia, and the similarities in experiences were uncanny. To give some context to the dealer, he came home at the age of 6 to find his mother shot dead, and from there it was all downhill. The difference, I guess, is that the War Veteran comes home from the war zone, the dealer is stuck there.

I don't really think the violent crime in these areas is strictly related to our violent popular culture, rather the violent pop culture in those areas is a symptom of the violence and poverty that is already endemic there. Though I will say that pop culture is responsible for all the "poseurs", but while they're extremely annoying, they're ultimately harmless.

Oh absolutely, I don't mean to say that culture alone should shoulder the blame, but rather that it's very much part of the problem, and an often overlooked one.

If you ask me, I'd say the biggest driver of violent crime in the US would be poverty, the drug trade/war, and the resulting drag on society it brings in the form of broken families, excessive prison population etc, wasted resource etc.

Expand that to different countries that have different definitions of violent crimes and data collection methods, this quickly snowballs into a pile of mess.

You realize you basically just said it's impossible to gather the data, yet still demand the data, right? (Note: I don't mean to imply you're "demanding!" it per se, but I can't think of a better term to use at the moment, since "want" feels too weak.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyp275

More than anything else, I find this argument rather insulting. Those that use these argument demonstrates in one fell swoop that they know nothing about the military, while speaking of them as if they're a monolithic entity devoid of intelligence, a robot that does everything its master says, instead of, you know, millions of their fellow Americans, with actual minds of their own.

That seems to be what he's saying. The military ISN'T coming for you. If it did, then clearly everything you (and the average citizen) knew about the military is out the window anyway and nothing can be assumed.

Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's just your bias goggle, my point is that you have studies from both neutral and biased sources, all with unclear data collection methodology, you can't simply combine them and call it a day. This isn't Gurren Lagann, you don't get to yell "Gattai!" and then kick logic and reason to the curb.

You still don't understand... if you want to knock those studies, you have to go into them. You didn't even look up those up, did you? How can you diss something that you haven't even read? Talk about judging a book by it's cover.

If you don't want to accept the numbers, fine. You don't have to. But this is how science works. Scientists study data and publish a paper. It gets peer-reviewed. Other scientists can then go through it and point out it's flaws and publish another paper on it, identifying those flaws. As a scientist, until someone else publishes a paper, or lists ways in which it is wrong, I have to accept. There are tons of papers out there on every conceivable subject, and if I were to just dismiss them because I personally wasn't involved or I didn't feel it agreed with my inner gut feeling, then I'd make a piss poor scientist.

There are a lot of smart scientists who are more than capable of handling complex subjects, such as gun deaths across multiple countries, controlling for all the variables, and come up with useful numbers. By you dismissing them out of hand, you aren't even bothering to engage. It would be like someone publishing a paper on cloning, and without even reading it, you simply go: "Wrong. You're wrong. There are a lot of factors that you obviously must not have taken into consideration." In the scientific world, how do you think such a person would be viewed.

You aren't even bothering to read them. How well would you like someone to judge you, without even reading your posts?

You are attacking science itself, and that is probably my biggest peeve. If you are unwilling to work with science, then there can be no realistic common ground with you. Because there are then, no numbers at all that we can agree on. Any number I come up with, no matter what the source (and per your words, I came up with some neutral sources), then there can be no argument with you, either. We have no ground to even start the debate. I bring up numbers so we can get an idea of the realistic picture, so we have a starting point. Thus, we have no starting point with you. There is no reality that you will agree with, other than your own.

But I guess, then, I can ignore any of your numbers (of which you have come up with none) and all of your assertions, just because I want to. Just because I can suggest the tiniest of flaws without having to prove it.

Quote:

Again, I find your inability to note that every countries are different rather perplexing.

Not as different as you might imagine. They consume our same media, they had our same economic troubles, they are ruled by very similar laws. This argument that "other countries are too different!" smacks of the notion that we can dismiss any argument or observation from any other country, just because the US is somehow special. That the humans in the US, are somehow worlds apart from every other human.

Well, I suppose we're more obese. But in all my travels to other countries, you generally find that humans are humans no matter where you go.

Honestly, Kyp, at this point, it is probably pointless to continue the discussion with you. You are more than welcome to question sources, but only if you have looked them over and can point out where each study has it's flaws. At least that is something I could respect. But if you are simply going to dismiss sources because of made-up reasons, if you are going to ignore science and not even attempt to deal with it, then you might as well stick your fingers in your ears. Perhaps I've misread you, and you really aren't afraid of what these studies might say, and you'd really only accept something that someone has walked through, step-by-step, and shown you everything. That is one way to go about things.

But scientists don't have that luxury. There are many papers in many fields that we don't have the training on. We are then forced to accept the paper's conclusions on a sort of faith. I'm not an expert in biology, so if someone publishes a paper on cloning that makes a conclusion, I have two options: accept the conclusions, or go through the paper and point out where it is wrong. Since I don't have the knowledge for the latter (like most scientists do), then I have to accept the conclusion.

Especially when the numbers are borne out by not 1, not 2, not even 3, but multitudes of studies, all saying the same thing.

So, if nothing else, kyp, what would convince you? What source, or what study, would you accept? Because more than anything else, that is what I'd like to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solace

It's not there to prevent creep. That's not what the second amendment is for. The second amendment is there to remind the people that they do have the ability to use force if they feel it is required. I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, but I understand the reasoning behind it. To be honest, most people really have no idea what most laws say they can or can't do. They just go along with whatever everyone else is doing. Dangerous, but I never claimed humans were immune to herd mentality.

Okay, not for creep. Then let's do a thought experiment.

Situation #1: the populace is armed, and the president decides to sieze total power and sends in the military to quell the populace. Most of the military decides to obey. How well do you think a rifle is gonna against tanks, planes, drones, etc.? Not very well. The battle will only really start when some of the populace manages to steal some of those planes, tanks, and drones, and fight the military on a more even footings.

Situation #2: Like above, but some portion of the military decides to side with the populace. In which case, the war will be fought using the military's equipment. The guns we already have, won't make much of a difference. Some help, yes, but hardly the true safeguard against tyranny.

I mean, take a look at the recent uprisings in the middle east such as Iraq and Libya. The populace, armed with guns, revolted. And they were promptly smashed by military equipment much weaker than the US military has. Without the assistance provided a no-fly zone and/or other military assistance, they would have never managed to do anything. Perhaps they would have managed a very low and sporadic action that lasted decades.

The government looks at your guns and chuckles. They realize that someone holding a gun, may as well be holding a security blanket, because it makes no practical difference.

If a dictator seizes control of the US, he will have no bones about dropping bombs on cities, ordering drone strikes, etc. That is why, ultimately, whether the population has handguns, rifles, shotguns, or even assault weapons, is ultimately pointless. We'd need surface-to-air missiles, RPGs, and improvised explosives to even begin to make a dent.

That is why I don't buy the argument that our guns defend against tyranny. They don't. And as you noted from SOPA/PIPA, the real defense against tyranny, is people being actively involved in their government. And I generally find that someone who owns a gun, isn't very active. Expect maybe they have an NRA membership.

Supreme Court in the early 1/2 of last century once said owning a gun is a privilege, not a right (Gov regulation is possible), and the arms were meant for State Militia, and specific define "militia" to be the national guard.

In effect, you CAN have a gun, but it is with Government consent. They can literally decide when, where and what model of gun you can keep.

It was only in 1970s and later suddenly people start making up stories about defense against tyranny etc and the supreme court changed their mind to "Right to bear arms" means guns for everyone!

In other news, I actually do believe gun owning Americans can stop homegrown- dictators--Look how well of a job the Iraqis did on the Americans .

You realize you basically just said it's impossible to gather the data, yet still demand the data, right? (Note: I don't mean to imply you're "demanding!" it per se, but I can't think of a better term to use at the moment, since "want" feels too weak.)

It's not impossible, rather that it's a simple matter of fact that there are very real differences in the way crime statistics are collected across different agencies, regions, and countries. Add to the fact that there are few organizations that won't hesitate on putting their own "spin" on the numbers, you have some real obstacle to unbiased and accurate data.

The Mexico gun figure is a good example - even though the number of weapons that are confirmed to be from the US is only a small part of the total weapons coming into Mexico, they're nevertheless presented as the source of the vast majority of weapon going into Mexico.

That seems to be what he's saying. The military ISN'T coming for you. If it did, then clearly everything you (and the average citizen) knew about the military is out the window anyway and nothing can be assumed.

Naw, seems like he deleted his original comment on it, but the post he wrote later pretty clearly demonstrated that's exactly what he meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

You still don't understand... if you want to knock those studies, you have to go into them. You didn't even look up those up, did you? How can you diss something that you haven't even read? Talk about judging a book by it's cover.

Thanks for assuming that I didn't read them. Really, have you?

Quote:

If you don't want to accept the numbers, fine. You don't have to. But this is how science works. Scientists study data and publish a paper. It gets peer-reviewed. Other scientists can then go through it and point out it's flaws and publish another paper on it, identifying those flaws. As a scientist, until someone else publishes a paper, or lists ways in which it is wrong, I have to accept. There are tons of papers out there on every conceivable subject, and if I were to just dismiss them because I personally wasn't involved or I didn't feel it agreed with my inner gut feeling, then I'd make a piss poor scientist.

The last thing many of these are are peer-reviewed. If they are, please point out to me on which scientific journal they were published.

Really, I mean, this is from one of the "studies" you've used, by the author, verbatim:

Quote:

"At no point have I ever claimed that this is even close to a rigorous analysis. In my original tweet and here I have made it clear that I have used data from Wikipedia. Since I thought it was common knowledge that Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source for any kind of real research, I didn’t expect people to confuse this post with a serious study."

As for the rest of your drivel which again is little more than insinuations that borders on insults, I'm not gonna quote them here to save space. Suffice to say that you're basically saying "well, someone put it on the internet, it must be true! even though I'm completely unfamiliar with how crime statistics are collected, and have no relevant experience in the field!"

It amazes me that your inclination is to believe everything you see until proven otherwise, when one should always be mindful of information they see online, both of the source, and how they're presented. You accuse me of having a bias when looking at the numbers, yet you yourself have the biggest bias of all - they all must be right, prepared correctly, because...well, because they must be!

Go and read the article I linked above to get an idea on the issues of accuracy on gathering crime data in the US alone. The UCR, NIBRS, NCVS all have their strengths and weaknesses. The most well known and common used by the media is the FBI's UCR, and the first thing any criminal justice professor will tell you when they first cover the subject is that it's not very accurate - it completely ignores unreported crime, depends entirely on local department's own reports with little to no verification, which are subject to variations in how crimes are defined and categorized, and often times are artificially inflated or lowered by the department for political/budget reasons.

I'm not attacking those numbers because they don't fit with my view, I'm just pointing out that it's very dangerous to blindly assume they're correct like you're doing here, because I know the difficulty involved in sourcing those data in the first place, nevermind accurately prepare and present them without bias.

Which brings me to my next point - as esteemed as I place scientists in general (good try on framing me as anti-science ), I have substantially less faith in many when it comes to politically charged (and generally money related) fields. Plenty of examples when it comes to fields such as global warming, fracking, healths etc. When there is politics, there is (grant) money, and with that comes corruption -scientists are still human.

This is not to say that you should dismiss all those number off-hand, but rather that you need to be very mindful of how they're collected and presented. Given what I know about the difficulties with collecting crime statistics, you're gonna have to do better than web articles or studies that doesn't clarify how their numbers are gathered.

Quote:

Not as different as you might imagine. They consume our same media, they had our same economic troubles, they are ruled by very similar laws. This argument that "other countries are too different!" smacks of the notion that we can dismiss any argument or observation from any other country, just because the US is somehow special. That the humans in the US, are somehow worlds apart from every other human.

That's just you perhaps needing to take a few sociology/criminology classes. The social structure of the US is very different than those in Japan, or India, or China. We're more obviously more similar to European countries, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to convince a German or French that they're no different than Americans. Then there are other factors just as religion, racial/ethnic diversity, population density, public service/infrastructure, and the list goes on and on. It's not that the US is somehow special, but rather that every country has their own specific set of circumstances, not one is the same.

I've lived in the US, Asia, middle-east and Africa, people are more different than you imagine.

Quote:

Honestly, Kyp, at this point, it is probably pointless to continue the discussion with you.

If you continue to ignore everything I've kept trying to explain, yup.

Quote:

I'm not an expert in biology, so if someone publishes a paper on cloning that makes a conclusion, I have two options: accept the conclusions, or go through the paper and point out where it is wrong. Since I don't have the knowledge for the latter (like most scientists do), then I have to accept the conclusion.

Uh, how about putting it in the "eh...I'll put that on hold" category? is there a deadline you have to meet on forming a definitive opinion on the paper?

Quote:

So, if nothing else, kyp, what would convince you? What source, or what study, would you accept? Because more than anything else, that is what I'd like to know.

Well, if you're going to indulge me...

First, they must come with a clear definition on the different category, and how they're reconciling the differences across different agencies and countries (for example, IIRC the UK doesn't count rape as a violent crime, but rather as its own category).

Second, the data collection methodology must be clarified, simply having a chart that cites another study whose chart cites another study and on and on doesn't mean jack.

Third, and this is aimed at the specific context of this thread, it can't be a data collection on nothing but gun statistics, but must at the minimum have comparable overall crime statistic to compare to for a meaningful context.

Oh, and obviously from a neutral source that doesn't have a stake in the fight, but have enough money and resource for an comprehensive study of this scale.

Good luck with that one.

Quote:

Situation #1: the populace is armed, and the president decides to sieze total power and sends in the military to quell the populace. Most of the military decides to obey. How well do you think a rifle is gonna against tanks, planes, drones, etc.? Not very well. The battle will only really start when some of the populace manages to steal some of those planes, tanks, and drones, and fight the military on a more even footings.

In the US? HAH. You'll have a military coup instead. The President may be our Commander-in-Chief, but the oath we swore when we joined the service was not of allegiance to the President. If a POTUS ever decides to seize power, what you'll have is a march on D.C. instead.

Quote:

Situation #2: Like above, but some portion of the military decides to side with the populace. In which case, the war will be fought using the military's equipment. The guns we already have, won't make much of a difference. Some help, yes, but hardly the true safeguard against tyranny.

As someone who's patrolled the streets in Iraq, I can assure you small arms makes quite a difference. I'd tell you to go study military tactics and urban warfare... but it'd probably be a waste of time.

Quote:

That is why I don't buy the argument that our guns defend against tyranny. They don't.

Only because you don't have any proper frame of reference due to an apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.

Planes are piloted (and yes, that includes drones), tanks, artillery, or any other mechanized assets are requires crews. We are not conscripts, we aren't mercenaries or secret police working for a dictator. The US military is an all-volunteer force, and while I'd hardly claim that we all joined the service out of some higher calling, I CAN tell you that the majority do feel rather strongly about serving and protecting our country. The thought that we would turn our weapons on our own people to grab power for a dictator is unthinkable, and frankly downright insulting.

Quote:

And I generally find that someone who owns a gun, isn't very active. Expect maybe they have an NRA membership

Yes, please lay on the blind stereotype some more

I guess I should stop voting now, after all, I have guns, but no NRA membership, and I should also tell all my buddies who are the same, I never knew we weren't allowed to be "politically active" if we own a gun!

To be honest, I doubt a disorganised rabble wielding any guns (even assault rifles) would be able to do much against the US military's Tanks, drones, fighter jets, elite trained marines, and not to mention the government would have a considerable number of informers and a vast intelligence network(to bust any guerillas). Firearms alone would not be enough to even hope to overthrow the government.

That's not to say that the American government couldn't fall, it could, but it wouldn't be dependent on firearms. It would fall in a manner similar to how Egypt's dictatorship-> mass protests followed by a military coup. Or the October revolution, where the key moment for the Communists was when enlisted soldiers came over to their banner.

In fact, the best defense against tyranny is actually the military, not civilian arms. However the military has to have particular values to be such a good defense, or else it can easily seize power for itself.

On the flipside, when the military sides with the tyranny, the state is usually doomed. For instance, in Nazi Germany, the real decisive advantage the Nazis had over their opponents was that the military, even though it found the Nazis personally distasteful, were willing to get in bed with them in order to restore their country to greatness (the Military was one of the few branches of the German government where the Nazis never had particularly firm control , and it was ultimately from the military where all the assassination plots against Hitler originated). If the Military had been unwilling to work with the Nazis, their dictatorship would have been a non-starter.

In addition, even the idea of keeping weapons to defend against potential "tyranny" is something that undermines stable and just democratic government, as it indicates that those people might view force as a better means to obtain justice then the countries democratic institutions. Such armed groups can easily become paramilitary groups, and ultimately terrorists. Look at what happened to Northern Ireland, if you want to look at the consequences of paramilitaries being let loose. They might think they're fighting for "justice" or "liberty", but their definition of justice or liberty seldom agrees with the rest of society.

I've been reading all of this (naturally) and I have to say I didn't know we had a "bill of needs" in the US, I could swear it was a Bill of Rights.

One of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms to fulfill our duty as militia memebers (every abled-bodied male) to maintain the security of a free state by making sure we are well-[trained] (regulated in 18th century lingo).
Now are Obama's proposals reasonable?
NO, they are constitutionally unacceptable.
I don't care about Sandy Hook with regard to the guns used because all manner of arms have been used in school attacks from blunderbusses & Tomahawks(Pontaic Rebellion Massacre of 1764, 10 children killed, plus head master), to explosives (Bath House Massacre, Michigan 1927, 45 children killed, 58 other people wounded), to bolt action rifles (Texas Tower massacre 1966, 14 dead, 31 wounded), to shotguns (Columbine 1999, 13 dead, 21 injured), pistols (Virginia Tech, 32 dead, 17 injured), and finally semiauto rifle & pistols (Sandy Hook, 26 dead).
Clearly there have been a plethora of school attacks from before the US even existed. Therefore, stopping them is an excercise in extreme difficulty maybe even futility.
What these shooting teaches us (if we are willing to look) is that guns of one type or another are not the problem here since so many different types are used. The common theme in all of these attacks is the lack of proper defense against such attacks at the point of attack.
Sandy Hook is a direct result of the failure of the Mother (Nancy Lanza), the mental health care in the US (since Adam should have been forced into an institution), and the Gun Free Zone Act of 1995 that allows these nutjobs to just waltz into a school, business, or theator and kill with impunity.
That's the simple truth that the gun control crowd will not admit because it doesn't fit into their agenda.

I've seen people all over the net parrotting the bullshit line that "no one needs an assault weapon."
No one needs an abortion, no one needs to have a car, or a computer, or anime, or violent vidoe games, or drugs, or a whole slew of other things, so it's a strawman argument with no basis in fact and I reject it as a totally emotionally driven viewpoint that fails under constitutional scrutiny.

The Supreme Court of the US has made it very clear over the last 220+ years that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, not a collective right based on militia service. Anyone peddling that lie needs to cease and desist spreading it and get educated on the issue.

Here are the most cited and relevant cases:

Presser vs Illinois:

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

The court defined what kinds of arms when it said that hunting weapons were not protected by the 2nd amendment because they were not useful for the common defense:

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

The court also created a "litmus tes" in that case which clarified what the mission of the constitutional militia is (Article 1, Section 8: uphold the constitution and Bill of Rights, repel invasions, put down insurrections). Thus any weapon of a military nature useful for those pusposes are protected. An AR-15 with standard 20 or 30 round magazines definitely falls into that category, a musket does not (fires too slow), a nuclear weapon does not (too much damage), a tank does not (is crew served not an individual weapon), a rocket launcher does not (you don't RPG your own people), a machine gun (maybe), and on and on. The best quick test to determine what citizens in the US should own is to see what the police can have. If the cops have it, then the citizens should have it. Otherwise you are looking at a police state, no matter how benevolent it may be.

The efficacy of the actual militia of the US (all able-bodied males ages 17-45), was allowed to lapse because of political parties (primarily the pacifist movement of the 1890s in both the Democrat and Republican parties) and thus we now find ourselves in a quandry that shouldn't exist. Theodore Roosevelt tried to rectify this problem right away with the Militia Act of 1903, by creating the National Guard (his active militia) and the unorganized or inactive militia which was supposed to be required to train via the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.

However, in 2008 the Supreme Courst attempted to rectify the whole mess without nullifying existing gun laws, in DC vs. Heller.
Justice Scalia declared the following:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

That ruling nullified the collective rights model entirely. IT IS DEAD!
Therefore, no new bans are constitutional, in fact, existing bans on certain shotguns, machine guns, and actual assault rifles could be challenged with this ruling since they do infringe on the 2nd amendment.

I don't get emotional about this issue in the knee-jerk sense. I get pissed, when I see so much bullshit being flung around by the main stream media and any poor fool who gets sucked into their lies.

This whole argument is so fucked up it drives me bonkers.
One one side we have the NRA and co. screaming that the government can't regulate gun owners. Yes, and no. The government cannot prohibit citizens from owning military weapons of use for the common defense. However, the government can (and should) make training through the CMP mandatory to purchase a paramilitary weapon since that is what it was created for in the first place.

One the other side, we have the hoplophobic gun control wackjobs who think they can rewrite the constitution because it will make them feel better. Their position is so weak and so filled with emotional hyperbole that it shouldn't even be considered for policy making. That people actually think banning anything will reduce violent crime is total bollucks and illogical at best.

Therefore, when I saw Obama standing up there using those children as a shield to drive his Edward Bernays style propaganda push this was the first thing that came to mind:

Obama's proposals are an infringement to the 2nd amendment, and since he took an oath to uphold the constitution and bill of rights, he should realize that he is very close to opening himself up for impeachment.
It's one thing to bypass congress to order the attacks on Libya, it is quite another to attempt to amend the constitution through executive fiat.

Again, any ammendment can be altered, but there is a procedure for that. If the country at some point wants to remove the 2nd Ammendment they can, but they have to go through the proper procedure as defined in for the Constitution.

While the Constitition and its Ammendments are the law of the land in terms of what the Government can and cannot do (via defining the citizens rights in terms of what that government is not allowed to do against it own citizens), the Constitution is a document that can be changed and has been changed. Many times. But it changes via procedures.

Exactly Ithekro, and there in lies the problem with those calling for this gross infringement on the 2nd amendment.
If they wish to nullify the 2nd amendment, they need to call for its repeal, otherwise they are in vioation of the Article III, section 3 of the constitution and are liable for treason.